Are you making this up as you go along or something?
Not only were they not “debunked”, but as you damn well know if you’ve read this thread (or pretty much any other on this subject) Ron Paul explicitly endorsed their contents, their contents were published under his aegis, name, and sponsorship, and he didn’t use his newsletter to publish an apology or retraction to what it had published previously.
What purpose do you think your brand of bullshit serves? The more people dig into Paul, the more it’s clear that he’s a racist, conspiracy nut, anti-science, anti-environment, anti-civil rights, etc… lunatic. Compared to the actual record, some online babble about “guilt by association” will accomplish what, exactly? If he actually gets the nod the news media will go berserk reporting on Paul’s own words and actions, and this will be the defense from the Paulian Faithful?
“Sure, you’ve got Paul’s own words, actions and beliefs to critique… but aren’t you ashamed of that guilt by association approach where you try to pin his own words, actions and beliefs on him? Well, aren’t you???”
Well since we have video of Rev. Wright delivering his sermons himself, and since nobody’s ever claimed that Obama wrote the sermons, no. And anyway I didn’t have a huge problem with Wright’s sermons, I think the guy had a point. But all we have ‘debunking’ Ron Paul’s newsletter is that he says he didn’t write it. That’s it. We know it was published under his name. We know he made a lot of money off of it. But he says he didn’t write it and so now it’s debunked? Yeah, well, Larry Craig just has a wide stance in the bathroom. After all, he said so.
It doesn’t even matter that much to me anyway, there are enough things that we can be sure Ron Paul has said that would keep me from ever voting for him. I do think Ron Paul has some really, really good points. He brings up issues and stands up for some very important things that nobody else, including Obama, is doing. He deserves credit for that, but that doesn’t mean he’s not accountable for his awful opinions as well. His supporters are excusing things that most of the country simply won’t.
“I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”
“… even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”
Either Ron Paul wrote that, or someone trying to look like Ron Paul who worked for the Ron Paul newsletters wrote that. I call that either Ron Paul or his ghost-writer.
“Other things” are his political positions that you can choose to disagree with and that’s fine. That you are not going to vote for him based on his political ideas is even better.
However, what we’re talking about here is smears and lies that you - as, obviously, an aware voter - should reject as such.
For example, the article from reason that is being quoted comes with awfully selective set of quotes but there’s one that closes whole question off:
Even though I dislike use of “ghostwriter” which strongly suggests Ron Paul talked to Rockwell and then Rockwell only skill was writing it in proper sentences. It is very suggestive. So, for a person who has doubts and who would like separate proof of a systematic racist views I even posted a challenge in this post describing how would one go about proving that Ron if not original author at least harbors same racist opinions:
Again, a person of such a inflamatory language would probably make a speech of similar nature or in his actions as medical doctor he would have a pattern of avoiding or rejecting minorities. But, there is no such cite. Of course, hear-say does not count, even if it appears in a magazine of such a pretentious name: reason. Going back to that reason article:
Can you follow this and not laugh He recalls a conversation from late 1980s…?! :o
Indeed we are. But once we got done with the Paulian Defense League, we can discuss Paul’s actual statements.
In that very article it points out that Paul, himself, said that he supported the racist stuff in his newsletter after he was challenged on it by a democrat he was running against. Funny how you missed that bit.
And all of this was explained to you, with a cite and a quote, in a post right after your nonsensical and fallacious “debunking”. Funny how you missed that too.
I’ve actually had PR people write quotes for me to go into press releases. I’ve also written presentations for an exec two levels up. In both those cases the people whose name is on the quote read the damn quote. Now, in the Paul case, this was not a one-time thing. If it happened once perhaps I’d agree it is possible that he missed it. But if it was continuing, either no one on his staff ever read what went out under his name or none of them ever thought to say, “Ron, this is some racist crap here. Maybe we had better stop it.” Perhaps it is not a good thing to support a candidate who surrounds himself with racists or people too dumb to recognize racism when it hits them over the head with a stick.
These are not smears and lies. The evidence that Rockwell wrote these articles is as follows:
Some of Paul’s people say Rockwell wrote them.
Uh…
Similarly, the evidence that Paul didn’t write them is:
Paul says he didn’t write them.
Some other people close to Paul say he didn’t write them.
Ghostwriter has many meanings. It does not “strongly suggest” that one. It suggests that articles were written by someone else (as Paul and his people say they were) and published under Paul’s name (which they were).
And yes, it’s sort of hilarious that there was a paroxysm of national outrage over the Wright statements and whether Obama was answerable for them, but Paul pretty much gets a pass for this stuff. Some of it was reported in 2008, but this kind of thing tends to sink a politician’s career. The more damning part may be that his audience doesn’t care.
His audience doesn’t care because he is the only candidate who isn’t racist in the real sense of the word. The war on terror is racist. The war on drugs is racist. Affirmative action is racist. Capital punishment is racist. Ron Paul opposes these policies. ALL of the other candidates, including Obama, supports these policies to different degrees. It makes you all feel good to point the finger at Paul and call him a racist when your candidate is racist in a much more meaningful way.
Please don’t say “real” when you mean “thing I just made up.” It’s one thing to redefine a word and another to use it in a way that contradicts its actual meaning. I’m opposed to the drug war, I’m opposed to capital punishment, and I was pleased when Obama dropped the war on terror nonsense. That doesn’t have anything to do the kind of crap that appears in the Ron Paul Reports. That’s just hatred for non-whites.
One of the reasons real racists like Paul - I say real as opposed to Will Farnaby-real - is that he’s in favor of gutting civil rights legislation. The only people who would benefit from the ending of those laws are racists who want a license to behave as they see fit, the same way the only people who would benefit from the end of sexual harassment laws are people who want to use their money and power to extort sex from people who work for them. Both of these views appeal to people who feel they are getting the shaft because they can’t do whatever they want - someone else might feel empowered to stand up to them. Their right to say whatever they like trumps your need to keep your job or be treated with any semblance of dignity.
To that end it’s ironic to say Paul isn’t the real racist. Even if he were miraculously elected, he wouldn’t be able to end the drug war and he wouldn’t do anything about capital punishment because he believes that’s a states’ decision. Abortion, on the other hand?
Even if we completely disregard everything the Evil Racist Minions wrote in Ron Paul’s newsletter, Ron Paul’s book and Ron Paul’s fundraising letter without Ron Paul having the slightest idea what was going on, there’s still the bevy of sleazy racists who eagerly support Ron Paul (i.e. Stormfront, David Duke, Holocaust denier Willis Carto etc.) and in some cases have gotten support from Ron.
“Paul views every individual as completely autonomous, and he is incapable of imagining any force other than government power that could infringe upon their actual liberty. White people won’t hire you? Then go form a contract with somebody else. Government intervention can only make things worse…
The most fevered opponents of civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s – and, for that matter, the most fervent defenders of slavery a century before – also usually made their case in in process terms rather than racist ones. They stood for the rights of the individual, or the rights of the states, against the federal Goliath. I am sure Paul’s motives derive from ideological fervor rather than a conscious desire to oppress minorities. But the relationship between the abstract principles of his worldview and the ugly racism with which it has so frequently been expressed is hardly coincidental.”
I was talking about the War on Terror title; conducting counterintelligence and disrupting terrorism isn’t nonsense. I think there should be procedures for determining what should be done about citizens who are involved with terrorist groups, but I’m not shedding tears over the fact that this guy was killed while hanging around with terrorists.
What I would like to do is speak the same language rather than changing the meaning of words whenever their standard definition becomes inconvenient.
Yes, it sure as shit is racist. Homophic, too. And stupid. There is a great deal of difference between policy objections on issues like Affirmative Action or sexual harassment laws and straight-up hatred for people. Referring to black people over and over again as “animals,” making jokes about rioting and welfare checks, paranoid nonsense about gangs of black teens infecting white people with AIDS, cracks about gay people enjoying the attention that comes with being an AIDS patient… that has nothing to do with policies. And I can see that you know that. Where this relates to Paul’s audience is that some of them don’t object to the disgusting racism because they share it, and they support him for that reason. That’s sickening.
Since Paul is running for president, he would have a great deal of opportunity to affect people’s lives if these are his views. So this seems like a rather lame objection.